If this was the third party in American politics:

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

- Strong support for social safety net, generous expansion of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
- Single payer health care
- "Welfare for Whites" - pour federal revenue into Appalachia
- A Christian left economic platform, decrying Social Darwinism as Satan's ideology
- A slew of new programs for the homeless, the hungry, and the sick - reinterpretation of the Bible from almost a socialistic point of view

- Heavily campaigning in rural, white America
- Pro-gun, pro-life, pro-God in public life
- Bring back school prayer, end "War on Christmas"
- Nationalistic and patriotic
- Strong support for veterans with PTSD
- Tough on Russia, tough on crime

This party would be anti-Trump.

This party is like bringing George Wallace, Ross Perot, Ronald Reagan, Huey Long, FDR, and William Jennings Bryan together.

Could this party be viable?

-Oh; god, LBJ+WJB+Wallace. Not my cup of tea.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

If you're "pro-God in public life" you're not progressive. Sorry. That's some right-wing stuff.

Because economic issues don't matter, right?

Not if you're a theocratic So-Con.

[Crumpets]

I wouldn't mind such a party, even if there's basically no chance I'd vote for it's candidate unless there was no Democrat on the ballot.

Why doesn't somebody on Atlas go out and file the paperwork to found the party and become it's chairman?

[RINO Tom]

If you're "pro-God in public life" you're not progressive. Sorry. That's some right-wing stuff.

Because economic issues don't matter, right?

Not if your a theocratic So-Con.

Has this site reached the level of idiotic, just-finished-my-AP-Government-test simplicity that we are implying that supporting religion being referenced and valued in the public sphere makes you a theocrat?

[Proud Family Values]

Thanks for the comments everyone - also just wanted to say I think it's an interesting concept.  Religion in the late 1890s and early 1900s did have a left and a right.  Early populists and progressives were very compelled by their faith to push for much of what liberals achieved in the 20th century.  Even something like prohibition was actually a progressive concept - women coming together and stamping sinful corruptive alcohol out of their men's lives - it was designed to achieve a better society.  Kind of like what progressives today do with these soda bans (which I hate because I love soda), but its government being used kind of like "the Mom".

I really am shocked at how un-vocal the religious left is in America.  The 80s, 90s, 00s have been dominated by the religious right.  "Values voters" in 2004 meant evangelical conservatives - as if liberal Catholics who went to mass every Sunday were not "values voters"... that really bothered me.

As for my idea, personally I think it would be better for those culturally conservative, white working-class voters to have a party that champions them over the interests of the rich and the powerful.  And if you have to do that by waving the American flag and talking about the wonders of Jesus' gospel, that's at least better than the choices that they have now.

Really there should be at least 5 viable parties in America... the more choices, the better... the more parties, the less it feels like a lesser of two evils...

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

If you're "pro-God in public life" you're not progressive. Sorry. That's some right-wing stuff.

Because economic issues don't matter, right?

Not if you're a theocratic So-Con.

Has this site reached the level of idiotic, just-finished-my-AP-Government-test simplicity that we are implying that supporting religion being referenced and valued in the public sphere makes you a theocrat?

First, it pretty clearly implies Christianity specifically. Second, it literally said bringing back state sponsored school prayer, and a lot of other things along that line are implied.

And on another note, this party advocates pouring money into poor white America. What about poor people that aren't white?

[Frimaire]

Jesus, that's our Front National, adapted into American politics.

I would guess it would end up like the FN: split in two wings.

-One that talks about protecting the Welfare State, loves Charles de Gaulle and is popular in the North, which is our Rust Belt. Most important figurehead is Florian Philippot, 35.
-One that talks about the "Christian roots of France", loves Jean-Marie Le Pen and is popular in Provence, which is our Alabama. Most important figurehead is Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, 27.

They are just united by their fear of "massive immigration" and their hate of the media. Marine Le Pen is currently in-between the two factions, but I don't know how much longer they can survive this way. They may end up splitting, and I think the same is true with this new hypothetical third party.

[GlobeSoc]

If there was a 3-way race with DLCer vs generic republican vs this I would probably be undecided for most of the campaign between DLCer and this but hold my nose for that third party in the final weeks on economic issues

[Figueira]

If you're "pro-God in public life" you're not progressive. Sorry. That's some right-wing stuff.

Because economic issues don't matter, right?

I think the point is that social issues do matter, not that economic issues don't matter.

[White Trash]

If you're "pro-God in public life" you're not progressive. Sorry. That's some right-wing stuff.

Because economic issues don't matter, right?

I think the point is that social issues do matter, not that economic issues don't matter.

I can understand that point. But I'm not a fan of the "No True Scotsman" argument being employed by the other poster.

[Intell]

If you're "pro-God in public life" you're not progressive. Sorry. That's some right-wing stuff.

Because economic issues don't matter, right?

Not if you're a theocratic So-Con.

Has this site reached the level of idiotic, just-finished-my-AP-Government-test simplicity that we are implying that supporting religion being referenced and valued in the public sphere makes you a theocrat?

First, it pretty clearly implies Christianity specifically. Second, it literally said bringing back state sponsored school prayer, and a lot of other things along that line are implied.

And on another note, this party advocates pouring money into poor white America. What about poor people that aren't white?

Tbf, that could be changed easily, and this party could get the votes of more conservative (socially) black people in the south.

[JustinTimeCuber]

If you're "pro-God in public life" you're not progressive. Sorry. That's some right-wing stuff.

Because economic issues don't matter, right?

I think the point is that social issues do matter, not that economic issues don't matter.

I can understand that point. But I'm not a fan of the "No True Scotsman" argument being employed by the other poster.

So theocratic thinking is, like, kinda compatible with progressivism?
Below is a complete list of the political debates that should involve religion:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aSU5LFIcAuzEW-Lhd1CFwUl_HCKFpbqlyRQU1wcnVk0/edit?usp=sharing

[publicunofficial]

Lost me at school prayer and Nationalism.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Lost me at school prayer and Nationalism.

yup

[Figueira]

If you're "pro-God in public life" you're not progressive. Sorry. That's some right-wing stuff.

Because economic issues don't matter, right?

I think the point is that social issues do matter, not that economic issues don't matter.

I can understand that point. But I'm not a fan of the "No True Scotsman" argument being employed by the other poster.

No, No True Scotsman is something different.

How would you like it if someone said "Anyone who supports tax cuts for the rich is not a progressive" and someone else said "Because social issues don't matter, right?"

[JustinTimeCuber]

If you're "pro-God in public life" you're not progressive. Sorry. That's some right-wing stuff.

Because economic issues don't matter, right?

I think the point is that social issues do matter, not that economic issues don't matter.

I can understand that point. But I'm not a fan of the "No True Scotsman" argument being employed by the other poster.

No, No True Scotsman is something different.

How would you like it if someone said "Anyone who supports tax cuts for the rich is not a progressive" and someone else said "Because social issues don't matter, right?"

my libertarian brother is okay with gay marriage so he's a progressive
he's also in favor of major tax cuts so he's basically like Bill O'Reilly
therefore, Bill O'Reilly voted for Bernie Sanders

[jojoju1998]

Too far left for most Americans, and highly doubtful it gets much support among Evangelicals (Evangelical churches don't generally teach that Jesus had much of an opinion about the state).

Americans don't want single payer. Even most Democrats don't want single payer. Check out what happened with ColoradoCare even as Hillary carried the state handily.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/16/most-americans-want-to-replace-obamacare-with-a-single-payer-system-including-a-lot-of-republicans/?utm_term=.dcf306c53722

http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx

Are you sure ? .....

Even if Colorado rejected it, I think it's mainly because Americans support Universal Health Care in theory but we haven't tried it out in real time. And we don't have to go single payer. We can do what Germany, The Netherlands, or what France has. Or we could do what the Heritage Foundation proposed.....

[หมูเด้ง]

Too far left for most Americans, and highly doubtful it gets much support among Evangelicals (Evangelical churches don't generally teach that Jesus had much of an opinion about the state).

Americans don't want single payer. Even most Democrats don't want single payer. Check out what happened with ColoradoCare even as Hillary carried the state handily.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/16/most-americans-want-to-replace-obamacare-with-a-single-payer-system-including-a-lot-of-republicans/?utm_term=.dcf306c53722

http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx

Are you sure ? .....

Even if Colorado rejected it, I think it's mainly because Americans support Universal Health Care in theory but we haven't tried it out in real time. And we don't have to go single payer. We can do what Germany, The Netherlands, or what France has. Or we could do what the Heritage Foundation proposed.....

Or just allow medicare buy-in or similiar program in states where there isn't a functioning personal insurance market.